Petitions to watch | Conference of 04.22.11

Posted Tue, April 19th, 2011 6:26 pm by Christa Culver

This edition of “Petitions to watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices' April 22 conference. These are petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.

Docket: 10-699Issue(s): (1) Whether the political question doctrine deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to enforce a federal statute that explicitly directs the Secretary of State how to record the birthplace of an American citizen on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a passport; and (2) whether Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, impermissibly infringes the President's power to recognize foreign sovereigns.

Certiorari stage documents:

Henderson v. United States

Docket: 10-918Issue(s): (1) Whether a prior state disposition resulting in a one-year suspended sentence, which is not appealable or considered a "conviction" under state law, is a "prior conviction" that has "become final" for purposes of the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. Â§ 851; and (2) whether the Due Process Clause requires the court to apply the rule of lenity in choosing between conflicting precedents with regard to the interpretation of a sentencing statute when the issue has never been decided by the en banc court of appeals and neither decision has been overruled.

Certiorari stage documents:

The following petitions have been re-listed for the conference of April 22. If any other paid petitions are re-distributed for this conference, we will add them below as soon as their re-distribution is noted on the docket.

Khadr v. Obama

Docket: 10-751Issue(s): (1) Whether a district court considering a habeas corpus petition may give conclusive effect to the governmentâ€™s assertion that the individual is unlikely to be tortured if transferred to another country? (2) Whether Section 242(a)(4) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act bars judicial review of claims under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment except in appeals from final orders of deportation, and if so construed, whether Section 242(a)(4) violates the Equal Protection Clause or the Suspension Clause.

Certiorari stage documents:

Jones v. Keller

Docket: 10-804Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina correctly held that the Due Process Clause permitted the state to continue to incarcerate prisoners even though they had been awarded sufficient sentence-reduction credits to mandate release; and (2) whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina correctly held that the Ex Post Facto Clause permitted the state to refuse to honor the sentence-reduction credits awarded to petitioners as prescribed by law at the time of petitioners' offenses.

Certiorari stage documents:

Bobby v. Mitts

Docket: 10-1000Issue(s): (1) Whether the State of Ohio offends due process by using the same penalty-phase jury instruction affirmed by this Court in Smith v. Spisak (2010); and (2) whether clearly established federal law extends the holding of Beck v. Alabama (1980) to the penalty phase of a capital trial.

Certiorari stage documents:

Virginia v. Sebelius

Docket: 10-1014Issue(s): (1) Whether the Commonwealth of Virginia has standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which requires individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a penalty; (2) whether the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress's Article I powers; (3) whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from all the remaining provisions of the law; and (4) whether the district court erred when it denied injunctive relief.

Merits Case Pages and Archives

On Monday, the justices met for their September 25 conference. The justices removed Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii from the court's October sitting. We expect orders from this conference on Thursday. The October 2017 term will begin on Monday, October 2. The calendar for the October sitting is available on the court's website.

Major Cases

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project(1) Whether respondents’ challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 is justiciable; (2) whether Section 2(c)’s temporary suspension of entry violates the Establishment Clause; (3) whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.

Gill v. Whitford(1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court’s test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

Carpenter v. United StatesWhether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

On August 16, Judge Jon Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit gave a lecture, “The Supreme Court — Then and Now,” in which he compared the Supreme Court today to the court in October Term 1957, when Newman served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren.